[cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers f
rom continuous builds
Mika Kukkonen
mika at osdl.org
Thu Aug 29 16:59:03 PDT 2002
OK, my bad :-)
So while we do not have commercial commitments, I guess it can be
questioned whether we want to have a "stable" and "development" trees
separately ala Linux kernel (and distros).
My initial answer would also be "no, single tree is enough", but it
would be interesting to hear other opinions.
--MiKu
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 16:44, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> Whoa... we are not talking about the same thing.
>
> What I mean by two lines of development would be something like a 1.X
> development tree, and a 2.X development tree. In a normal product
> environment, this could come about because you have some customers that are
> still using 1.X and are paying for support (i.e. bug fixes) even though
> development is well on it's way with 2.x.
>
> It is considerably more difficult to maintain a split build/integration/test
> environment, but if it is your source of income then you have no choice. By
> nature of what we are trying to create I do not think we have this
> constraint.
>
> -rusty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: Lynch, Rusty
> Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> f rom continuous builds
>
>
> If I am correct, we actually have two lines of development, i.e. the
> main build and the individual patch directories. And what I have heard
> lately, they are not quite well on sync currently.
>
> So what we need is some way to ensure, that when we do labeling (i.e.
> tagging something CGLE 1.0), main line, the patches directory and
> validation tests for code are in sync. If I heard you correctly, there
> currently is no way to do that without manual checking?
>
> --MiKu
>
> On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 16:01, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> > Ok, I was just chatting with Tariq about how the build scripts work, and
> how
> > big of a deal it would be to do what I am proposing. As it ends up, there
> > are no technical issues. We can use the build system as it is currently
> > designed, with milestone builds and all. The only assumption that I am
> > making that needs to be verified, is that we will only carry on a single
> > line of development. I personally do not think we need to deal with the
> > headaches of multiple lines of development, but what does everyone else
> > think.
> >
> > -rusty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shureih, Tariq
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:14 PM
> > To: Lynch, Rusty
> > Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
> > Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> > from continuous builds
> >
> >
> > The way we do Milestone builds now is as follows:
> > Continuous builds are constantly crunching as changes to CVS trigger them.
> > The builds are identified by the Build Number on the build output page.
> > The build directories underneath it all are identified by date/time of
> build
> > and are stored up to the previous four (4) builds.
> > When a milestone is scheduled, the integration process is:
> > Seven days prior to the Milestone date, no new features are allowed to be
> > checked in without review and approval (usually this is planned ahead of
> > time). The only check-ins allowed is fixes and updates to existing
> > integrated features.
> > Three days before the Milestone date, this is the Integration period where
> > we maintain a stable build/tree and run the last well know good build
> > through ABAT and Integration check -- which is basically a check for
> > accuracy and installation/packaging. However, carefully reviewed and
> > approved changes are allowed to be integrated given they don't impact the
> > stability of the Milestone. If this condition is not met, the feature is
> > pushed out to the next Milestone.
> >
> > On the day of the Milestone we promote the build from "Dev" to "Stable"
> and
> > announce the availability of the Milestone build to the validation and
> > engineering teams for testing, etc.
> >
> > So, to answer your question, the Milestone build is taken from the
> > continuous builds.
> >
> > --
> > Tariq ¤
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lynch, Rusty
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:29 AM
> > To: Shureih, Tariq
> > Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
> > Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> > from continuous builds
> >
> > Tariq,
> > The way things work now, don't you kick off a milestone builds
> independently
> > from the continuous build? Does what I have proposed mess up our current
> > build system implementation for creating milestone builds, and having
> those
> > milestone builds show up separately on the builds page?
> >
> > -rusty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephanie Glass [mailto:sglass at us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:20 AM
> > To: Lynch, Rusty
> > Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'; cgl_discussion-admin at osdl.org
> > Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> > from continuous builds
> >
> >
> >
> > Rusty,
> > I don't know if we talked about milestone builds, but could your way also
> > have milestone builds, such as on the 10/15 date when all code is initial
> > all in? Or would this just be under stable builds?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Stephanie
> >
> > Linux Technology Center
> > IBM, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758
> > Phone: (512) 838-9284 T/L: 678-9284 Fax: (512) 838-3882
> > E-Mail: sglass at us.ibm.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Lynch, Rusty"
> >
> > <rusty.lynch at intel To:
> > "'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'" <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>
> > .com> cc:
> >
> > Sent by: Subject: [cgl_discussion]
> > Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> > cgl_discussion-adm from continuous builds
> >
> > in at osdl.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 08/29/2002 01:00
> >
> > PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > When you look at the continuous builds at
> > http://tinderbox.developer.osdl.org/Builds/status.html or the packages
> that
> > are the output of the build at http://builds.developer.osdl.org/index.php,
> > the version of the build and the build number is called out.
> >
> > For example, on 08-27-2002 at 14:34:39 there was a build that is titled
> > "CGLE 1.0 - Build21". Unless we plan on having multiple development
> > threads
> > for 1.X and 2.X implementations of the requirements, the concept of a
> > version number doesn't mean anything in this scope. The build is just
> > building the latest code. When the code will be considered ready for
> > release and what name we want to attach to that code doesn't change the
> > fact
> > that this is just a build from the source tree at a given point in time.
> >
> > I would like all of our continuous build output to be identified by just a
> > build number and reference to when the build happened. This would
> decouple
> > the build process from debates on what the release name is. For example,
> > the title that you would see on http://builds.developer.osdl.org/index.php
> > would change from "CGLE 1.0 - Build 21 - 08-27-2002 14:34:39" to " CGLE
> > Build 21 - 08-27-2002 14:34:39". Maybe the bits will become eventually be
> > released as CGLE 1.0 or CGLE 1.0.1 or who knows. Why force the build
> > system
> > to understand our release naming convention?
> >
> > BTW, the builds page could still have a "stable" and "development"
> section.
> >
> > -rusty
> > _______________________________________________
> > cgl_discussion mailing list
> > cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> > http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cgl_discussion mailing list
> > cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> > http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
More information about the cgl_discussion
mailing list